Olson v. Aldren’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably Diesel Machinery, Inc. v. B.R. Lee Industries, Inc. (2005), Geo. A. Clark & Son, Inc. v. Nold (1971)
10 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 7 U.S.C. § 450
Relies on Pruett v. Burr · Lanesboro Produce & Hatchery Co. v. Forthun · Bentz v. Cimarron Insurance Co. · Bruha v. Bocheck · Frame v. Hohrman
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ — the many variables reflecting income tax returns of farmers from year to year make such evidence highly speculative and insufficient to sustain an award for loss of profits. Differences in weather, feed supply, cost of operation, and prices in general are such as to give little probative value to [the information contained in] an income tax return for the purpose of showing a loss of profit.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The difference, at the time and place of acceptance, between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted. (2) The loss of any calf crop that was the proximate result of the breach of any warranty of the defendants. (3) Any expenses for veterinary services and medicines that were the proximate result from the breach of any warranty of the defendants. (4) Any costs for extra feed and care of the animals that were the proximate result of the breach of any warranty of the defendants. (5) Any costs for disinfecting in an effort to eradicate the disease and the prem ises wherein the diseased animals were kept that were the proximate result of the breach of any warranty of the defendants. (6) Any direct injury to the business of the plaintiff that proximately resulted from the breach of any warranty of the defendants.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Although sometimes difficult to prove, the generally accepted rule is that, where it is shown that a loss of profits is the natural and probable consequence of the act or omission complained of, and their amount is shown with reasonable or sufficient certainty, there may be a recovery therefore, [citation omitted] However, such damages must not be speculative, contingent, or uncertain and there must be reasonable proof of the amount thereof. Any reasonable method of estimating a prospective profit is acceptable, [citation omitted] Absolute certainty is not required.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.